Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-01-94-IX-C 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 1 , 1994 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 4 . 1 Establishment of Use Regulations (uses permitted by right) Article 6. 16. 16 Borrow Pits for Federal and State Highway Projects DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Proposed amendment Extension 2583 8/22/94 Public Hearing Minutes Memo from Erosion Control Supervisor TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough-732-8181 10/5/94 Commissioners Minutes (draft) Durham -688-7331 10/17/94 Planning Board Minutes (draft) Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts. BACKGROUND: The issue of borrow pits was recently brought to the attention of the Planning Staff by a contractor bidding for a NCDOT contract to replace the bridge on NC 54 which crosses the Haw River. A borrow pit is an area excavated to provide- fill dirt for construction projects, including major road construction projects. After the excavation is completed, the area is generally reclaimed. Reclamation may include refilling the borrow pit with inert construction debris from the road project. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not provide a distinction between a borrow pit and a commercial quarry operation, nor does it distinguish between the reclamation of a borrow pit and the creation of a landfill. Both landfills and quarries require approval of a Class A Special Use Permit. The amendment would allow the creation and reclamation of a borrow pit associated with a State of Federal highway improvement project as a use by right, provided that certain conditions specified in the amendment text are met. 2 The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on August 22, 1994. There were no citizen comments. A Planning Board member requested information on the differences between local and State or Federal erosion control programs. A memorandum from the Erosion Control Supervisor regarding this issue is attached. The Board of Commissioners commented that construction debris should be reused to the extent possible rather than be buried in the borrow pit in order to be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Policy. The Board of Commissioners also raised the issue of enforcing the requirement that the borrow pit be reclaimed. The County Manager responded to the concerns of the Commissioners by stating that the provision could be deleted from the ordinance if NCDOT did not follow through with reclamation. Likewise, the provision could be deleted if the County was dissatisfied with the performance of NCDOT for any other reason, including the failure to reasonably recycle construction debris. The alternative would be for NCDOT to purchase the property, exempting the project from local land use regulations. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 19, 1994 and recommended approval. The vote was unanimous. The Board of Commissioners received the Planning Board recommendation on October 5, 1994 . Commissioner Willhoit remained concerned with the possibility that recyclable construction debris would be deposited in the borrow pit. He suggested that the amendment require submittal of a proposed debris recycling program, or a statement as to why material will not be recycled. The proposed amendment was revised per Commissioner Willhoit's suggestion. The Planning Board considered the revision on October 17, 1994 and recommended approval by a vote of four to three. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed revision to require submittal of a proposed debris recycling program, or a statement as to why material will not be recycled. 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 4 . 1 Establishment of Use Regulations (uses permitted by right) Article 6. 16. 16 Borrow Pits for Federal and State Highway Projects ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High x Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The issue of borrow pits was recently brought to the attention of the Planning Staff by a contractor bidding for a NCDOT contract to replace the bridge on NC 54 which crosses the Haw River. A borrow pit is an area excavated to provide fill dirt for construction projects, including major road construction projects. In some cases, fill material is obtained from area within the right-of-way. In other cases, the fill material is borrowed from private property, under a contract with the property owner. Borrow pits are located as close to the construction site as possible to minimize transportation costs. After the excavation is completed, the area is generally reclaimed. Reclamation often includes refilling of the pit with dirt, stumps and other debris which may be associated with the project. A four to five acre site on an existing farm is needed to provide fill to reconstruct the bridge across the Haw River on NC 54 . The pit created by the borrowing activity would be filled with the debris from the demolition of the existing bridge. Existing Zoning Ordinance Requirements Under current regulations, two Special Use Permits would be required, one for the removal of the dirt and the other for the filling in the pit with the debris from the bridge. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a distinction between a borrow pit and a commercial quarry operation, nor does it distinguish between the reclamation of a borrow pit and the creation of a landfill. 4 Extraction of Earth Products The Zoning Ordinance defines the extraction of earth products as "the process of removal of mineral ores, soils or other solids, liquid or gaseous matter from their original location. It does not include any processing of such material, beyond incidental mechanical consolidation or sorting to facilitate transportation to the site of use or location of further processing" . Extraction of Earth Products is listed in the Table of Permitted uses as a Class A Special Use, and is allowed only in the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Services, and Industrial zoning districts. Landfill The Zoning Ordinance defines a landfill as "a site within which is deposited solid waste material, including trash, construction debris, stumps, branches and limbs, garbage and industrial waste" . Landfills larger than two acres are also a Class A Special Use, allowed only in the AR, R1, RB, AS and Industrial zoning districts. Approval Authority Orange County has no jurisdiction to require permit approval if borrowing and filling occurs within DOT right- of-way. If the borrow pit is located on private property, then approval of a Class A Special Use Permit would be required for the extraction of fill material, but only if the property were located in the AR zoning district. A borrow pit would not be permitted at all in any other district. Prior to the filling of the pit with material such as debris associated with the construction, a Special Use Permit for a landfill would be required. The Solid Waste Division of the Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources does not require a permit for projects which fall under the Beneficial Disposal Rule. This Rule exempts "beneficial fill" from State permitting requirements. Beneficial fill is defined as inert debris consisting of "uncontaminated soil, rock, stone, gravel, brick, and concrete" . The Beneficial Disposal Rule does not, however, exempt such activities from local land use regulations. Implication for Projects such as Widening of 1-85 Another issue is raised by this inquiry is the possibility of encountering borrow pits outside of the NCDOT right-of- way in connection with the widening of 1-85 . If the borrow pit was located in an area designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, then the property could not be rezoned to a district would allow the use. The only recourse in that case 5 would be for DOT to purchase the property, even if it will be reclaimed to a usable form at a later date. The proposed amendment seeks to address this issue before further situation similar to the Haw River bridge replacement are encountered. The amendment would allow the creation and reclamation of a borrow pit associated with a State of Federal highway improvement project as a use by right, provided that certain conditions specified in the amendment text are met. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ARTICLE 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE 4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations Except as otherwise provided herein, regulations governing the use of land and structures are hereby established as shown in the Schedule of Permitted Uses. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. Within all districts there are certain uses that are permitted as a matter of right. The uses are: 1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of electricity, telephone, and cable television service, accessory and appurtenant apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and switching boxes. 2 . Bona fide farms. 3. Buildings and other temporary structures used in connection with the construction of a permanent building. 4 . Neighborhood utility facilities located within a public right of way with the permission of the owner of the right of way (State, City or Town) . 5. Off street parking as a required accessory use to a permitted use. 6. Public and private streets and roads. Railroad rights-of-way. 7 . Water and sanitary sewer lines, gas and liquid fuel distribution lines. 8. Telephone exchanges (without business offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sanitary sewer pumping stations. (See Article 6. 16. 12) . 9. Electrical substations, switching and metering stations and associated transmission lines, where incoming voltage does not exceed 100 kilovolts (kv) . (See Article 6. 16. 14) . 10. Solid waste collection facilities owned and operated by a public agency for the purpose of disposal of household waste by Orange County residents. (See Article 6. 16. 15) . 6 11. Borrow pits (including reclamation by landfillinq) associated with a State or Federal highway project. ISee Article 6. 16. . 16) . Uses requiring special permits must meet certain conditions specified in this ordinance. Only after the existence of these specified conditions has been determined by the Board of Adjustment, or the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, will a special permit be issued; otherwise such uses are prohibited uses. Regulations governing the use of land and structures within a Planned Development district are as established in Article 7 . ARTICLE 6.16. 16 Borrow Pits for Federal and State Highway Projects (new) The following restrictions shall be applied to the above uses in all zoning districts: Al The borrow pit is located within one-half mile of the construction site; An Erosion Control Plan has been approved by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural, Resources 21 The material extracted is to be used solely for a State or Federal road construction project; M. Road construction plans include provisionjor,.. _ reclaiming the excavated area. gomn04041004 orafinthomisimumwthanagavitddawiimehamaut .... 4001400iiiiMPNWONOWAN4001000NWROWOM claooificd ao bcncficial fill by the Solid Waste Branch of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, provided that the debris is also associated with a State or Federal Highway road construction •ro 'ect. .....labIa in terials i the re I n or I illing o VIONWPAkiii# r4 1 PAii294444,,,,,,,k1AVIVMS1*;140kriiii OtanOtigeb141#0 .ksw.4 .4'.44-444..ii-4,***************** * ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 7 8/2204 Public Hearing Minutes • • 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, 2 to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to 3 the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. 4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 5 b. Radio/TV Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks 7 This it was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of 8 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add 9 new requirements for additional information and standards of evaluation regarding 10 communications towers. Currently a Class B Special Use Permit is required. If 11 the Board of Adjustment determrines,that all of the Ordinance criteria is met, the 12 permit is approved. If the proposed amendment is approved, towers would have to be 13 built to accanrcdate an additional use. The additional user would he-responsible 14 for working out cost-sharing with the original owner . 15 16 QUESTIONS AND/OR CCIMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSICNERS AND PLANNING BOARD 17 18 Diane Shaw, an Orange County resident and member of the Board of Adjustment, 19 spoke in support of this proposal. She commented that citizens are concerned 20 about the frequency with which these towers are going up. 21 22 David Helms, with Cellular Ohre, indicated that they would support this 23 proposal with one exception. He requested that each tower user be required to 24 build their awn storage shed. It would not cause than a problem to have two sheds 25 at the base of the tower, however, they foresee difficulties if the same shed is 26 shared. He agreed to send fhe Planning Board an information report an these 27 towers. 28 29 Frances Douglas, an Orange County resident and a member of the Board of 30 Adjustment, spoke in support of this amendment. She indicated that towers devalue 31, nearby residences. It is in the landowners and tower owners best interest to 32 combine uses on new towers. 33 34 Paul Cook, a Buck Horn Road resident, indicated that two towers are located 35 near his home. He requested that an amendment be approved which would required 36 that tower access roads have gates installed in.order to deter .their use by 37 drinkers. He also requested that the County consider making this retroactive. 38 39 Auction was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko, 40 to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to 41 the Board of Canmi.ssioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. • 42 VOTE: U NIMOUS . 43 44 c. Borrow Pits/State & Federal Highway Projects 45 This item. was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of 46 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow 47 a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a 48 use permitted by right in all zoning districts. 49 50 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISS/ONERS AND PLANNING BOARD 51 52 In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Willis indicated 53 that the Federal Government would not have to request the right to use land for a 54 borrow pit except in situations where they do not own the land. 8 Commissioner Willhoit requested that staff consider this request in terms of 2 the principals for sustainable communities. Construction rubble being buried, 3 rather than reused, is worrisome. EPA promotes the reuse of construction 4 materials. 5 6 Clint Burklin requested information contrasting Orange County's and the 7 Federal Government's erosion control programs. Ms. Willis indicated that she was 8 not familiar with the differences, but the staff person in charge of Orange 9 County's erosion control program could came to a Planning Board meeting and report 10 on this program. 11 12 Commissioner Gordan asked how the reclamation could be enforced if this was 13 a use by right? 14 15 Ms. Willis indicated that if the borrow pit was not reclaimed, it would no 16 longer be a use by right and would require a Special Use Permit. 17 18 John Link stated that the County has no authority where D.O.T. pursues the 19 borrow pit process through their own right of way. This proposal would allow 20 D.O.T. to save the tax dollars necessary to purchase the right-of-way if they 21 agree to reclaim the land. If they do not follow through with the reclamation, 22 the county could delete thig provision. D.O.T. would then be required to purchase 23 the property. 24 25 Amption was made by Commissioner Cordon, seconded by Camrissioner 26 Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be 27 returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29 30 4. Other Subdivision-Ordinance Text its 31 a. • Lot:BoUndaries (Public Rights-of-Way) 32 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of 33 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations • 34 which would require that property lines for individual lots extend only to the 35 edge of a public road right-of-way and that the area within private road easements 36 be included within lot boundaries. 37 b. Lot Layout- (Land Hooks) 38 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of • 39 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment which would allow, in some 40 circumstances, a new lot to contain land area on both sides of a private road 41 easement. 42 c. Private Road Standards Curve Radius 43 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of 44 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision. Regulations 45 to allow for modification of the 125-foot curve radius for subdivisions served by 46 existing private roads which have a lesser radius. 47 48 JESTIONS AND/cR EFTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONS AND PLANNING BOARD 49 50 Ms. Willis indicated that the proposed amendment to allow a new lot to 51 contain land area on both sides of a private road easement is necessary to deal 52 with the occasional unusually shaped property. Currently adjustments to the 53 location of the road or property line are required in order to meet the technical 54 requirements. The technical requires do not always appear appropriate or correct ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 IL_ MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Willis, Planner III FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor PROJECT: A Brief Comparison of the State's and County's Erosion Control Requirements and Standards DATE: September 14, 1994 For private development projects within the County disturbing more than 20, 000 square feet an erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before any timbering, demolition, clearing, or grading begins. The State has jurisdiction over projects conducted by the Department of Transportation, the County or one of the municipalities, the school districts, OWASA, UNC, etc. They require plan approval when more than one acre (43,560 square feet) will be disturbed. The State's program is administered by the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. DOT has an arrange- ment with the State allowing them to design and approve their own erosion control plans and inspect their own sites. The State periodically monitors DOT sites. County staff monitors DOT and other State sites and reports problems to DEHNR staff in the Raleigh regional office. You specifically asked about DOT's performance. In the past DOT has not done a very good job at erosion and sediment control. However, in the past few years they have improved and is obvious in the widening of I-85. It is difficult to fairly compare DOT's and the County's erosion , control standards because I am partial toward the approach and devices we use on sites under the County's jurisdiction. In general, my opinion is that the techniques, measures, and devices - we use are more effective. This is especially true of the sediment control devices. The standards in the County's Erosion Control Manual were researched and adopted in response to failures and poor performance of devices designed to the State's standards. Based on my observations, these standards produce superior sediment-trapping performance. 4■1, - .1/ A. 10 fr #19 9-14-94.B Post Office Box 8181 Carrboro/Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 FAX 919-644-3002 9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes • 10 (3) Borrow Pits/State & Federal Highway Projects Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow borrow pits associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts. The issue of borrow pits was recently brought to the attention of the Planning Staff by a contractor bidding for a NCDOT contract to replace the bridge on NC 54 which crosses the Haw River. A. borrow pit is an area excavated to provide fill dirt for construction projects, including major road construction projects. After the excavation is completed, the area is generally reclaimed. Reclamation may include refilling the borrow pit with inert construction debris from the road project. Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not provide a distinction between a borrow pit and a commercial quarry operation, nor does it distinguish between the reclamation of a borrow pit and the creation of a landfill. Both landfills and quarries require approval of a Class A Special Use Permit. The amendment would allow the creation and reclamation of a borrow pit associated with a State or Federal highway improvement project as a use by right, provided that certain conditions specified in the amendment text are met. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on August 22, 1994. There were no citizen comments. A Planning Board member requested information on the differences between local and State or Federal erosion control programs. A memorandum from the Erosion Control Supervisor regarding this issue is an attachment to these minutes on page The Board of Commissioners commented that construction debris should be reused to the extent possible rather than be buried in the borrow pit in order to be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Policy. The Board of Commissioners also raised the issue of enforcing the requirement that the borrow pit be reclaimed. The County Manager responded to the concerns of the Commissioners by stating that the provision 11 could be deleted from the ordinance if NCDOT did not follow through with reclamation. Likewise, the provision could be deleted if the County was dissatisfied with the performance of NCDOT for any other reason, including the failure to reasonably recycle construction debris. The alternative would be for NCDOT to purchase the property, exempting the project from local land use regulations. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Barrows asked who would make the complaint regarding reclamation on private property. Willis responded that the property owner or an adjacent property owner would probably be the ones who would make the complaint. She also noted inspectors in the field could make the report. Burklin asked about the constraints that the County would be enforcing. Willis responded that if the criteria listed was met, the use would be permitted by right and not require a Special Use Permit. MOTION: Barrows moved approval of the Planning Staff's recommendation. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. d. Other Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments ( 1) Lot Boundaries (Public Rights-of-Way) Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would require that property lines go to the edge of public road rights-of-way and that the area within private road easements be included within lot boundaries. The proposed amendment makes explicit the practice of Orange County to require that property lines go to the edge of public road rights-of-way and that the area within private road easements be included within lot boundaries. In the case of public roads, the property is dedicated for use by the public and there are no individual rights or responsibilities associated with the right-of-way, even if it is included in the deed description for an adjoining parcel. OCT-19-1994 09:56 FROM ORANGE CT'? COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.01/01 12 MINUTES 10/5/94 BOCC MEETING ITEM REMOVED PROM TSB CONB*ET AGENDA Lt. .2, 7e, +Lpisv. *2- 61i___ 4_ —$4J0. -t FO: Ji■ us; REGMATIONS FOR BORROW 10/TS FOR FEDERAL AND. STATE nanny 12MbliN71 Commissioner Willhoit requested that this amendment be sent back to the Planning Board for further review. Specifically, he would like, as part of the erosion control plan, a plan from the contractor with a description of the recycling that will occur or a statement of why material from the project will not be recycled. He feels that making it easy to bury materials will not encourage contractors to use recycled products. The Board agreed to send it back to the Planning Board, TOTAL P.01 12a have something happen, but, she did not want to become so concerned with getting something out that important issues are not adequately addressed and completed. Rosemond noted that she too, felt an urgency, it is important that everyone feels a good sense of where we are going and that the quality of open space which we had said we wanted is accomplished. Discussion of various dates indicated November 7, at 7:30 p.m. would probably be the best time to schedule a special meeting. Waddell asked that Staff contact absent Planning Board members to determine if a quorum could be met and notify him as soon as possible. (This was done and special meeting was scheduled for November 7, 1994, 7 :30 p.m. ) AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/22/94) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ( 1) Borrow Pits/State & Federal Highway Projects Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts. The issue of borrow pits was recently brought to the attention of the Planning Staff by a contractor bidding for an NCDOT contract to replace the bridge on NC 54 which crosses Haw River. A borrow pit is an area excavated to provide fill dirt for construction projects, including major road construction projects. After the excavation is completed, the area is generally reclaimed. Reclamation may include refilling the borrow pit with inert construction debris from the road project. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not provide a distinction between a borrow pit and a commercial quarry operation, nor does it distinguish between the reclamation of a borrow pit and the creation of a landfill. Both landfills and quarries require approval of a Class A Special Use Permit. 'The amendment would allow the creation and reclamation of a borrow pit associated with a State or Federal highway improvement project as a 13 use by right, provided that certain conditions specified in the amendment text are met. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on August 22, 1994. There were no citizen comments. A Planning Board member requested information on the differences between local and State or Federal erosion control programs. A memorandum from the Erosion Control Supervisor regarding this issue is an attachment to these minutes on page The Board of Commissioners commented that construction debris should be reused to the extent possible rather than be buried in the borrow pit in order to be consistent with the Sustainable Communities Policy. The Board of Commissioners also raised the issue of enforcing the requirement that the borrow pit be reclaimed. The County Manager responded to the concerns of the Commissioners by stating that the provision could be deleted from the ordinance if NCDOT did not follow through with reclamation. Likewise, the provision could be deleted if the County was dissatisfied with the performance of NCDOT for any other reason, including the failure to reasonably recycle construction debris. The alternative would be for NCDOT to purchase the property, exempting the project from local land use regulations. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 19, 1994 and recommended approval. The vote was unanimous. The Board of Commissioners received the Planning Board recommendation on October 5, 1994. Commissioner Wilihoit remained concerned with the possibility that recyclable construction debris would be deposited in the borrow pit. He suggested that the amendment require submittal of a proposed debris recycling program, or a statement as to why material will not be recycled. The proposed amendment has been revised per Commissioner Willhoit's suggestion, and is being brought back before the Planning Board receive a recommendation regarding the revision. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to require submittal of a proposed debris recycling program, or a statement as to why material will not be recycled. 'Burklin asked what materials could be recycled. Willis responded that some of the concrete could possibly be broken up and used again. If there 14 are materials that DOT could break down and use again, the County would want them to do so. She continued that Commissioner Willhoit indicated he felt there were materials that DOT could reuse. Waddell stated that he felt nothing would be accomplished by such a proposal. Willis stated that if the borrow pit is on DOT property, nothing can be done; it is totally exempt from County regulations. If it is on private property that is leased, a Special Use Permit would be required for the excavation and another for the refilling of the pit. With this proposal, DOT would not have to go through the condemnation and purchase process. The County would have a little more control over what goes back into the pits . If DOT did not comply, then the amendment could be removed and DOT would again be required to get the Special Use Permits. Reid agreed that such a proposal would not accomplish anything. Burklin noted that this is a good way to state the County policy to recycle, but would not like to have the County expend a lot of time and expense. He felt it would just make a policy statement. Willis responded that she felt that was probably Commissioner Willhoit's intent. MOTION: Burklin moved approval of the revised language as presented by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Brown. VOTE: 4 in favor. 3 opposed (Waddell, Jobsis, Reid - felt it would not accomplish anything) . AGENDA ITEM #11: MATTERS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (11/30/94) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ( 1) Article 4 . 1 - Uses Permitted by Right In All Zoning Districts (Telephone/fiber optic equipment buildings) Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to Article 4 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance which would reduce restrictions related to the placement of cabinetized telephone equipment. The Zoning Ordinance lists uses allowed by right in all districts. A number of those uses are related to the distribution of utility services.